I am a current-affairs columnist and film critic for The New York Post, for which I have covered everything from political conventions to film festivals. I have also contributed reviews and essays to The Wall Street Journal. Follow me on Twitter: @rkylesmith.

'Fruitvale Station' Is Loose With The Facts About Oscar Grant

Harvey Weinstein’s big Oscar hopeful this summer is “Fruitvale Station,” a true story about the fatal Oakland shooting of an unarmed young black man that arrived with almost miraculous timing. Hitting theaters just as the jurors in the George Zimmerman trial were deliberating. the film won the two top prizes at the Sundance Film Festival and has become a cause celebre among critics. Activists are seizing the opportunity to promote the movie, which calls for justice and implies that nothing like it has occurred yet, though the man who shot and killed Oscar Grant has already served time in prison and Grant’s family has prevailed in a large civil suit.

Hoping to stir the public, though, the film dances around the facts. Its first problem is how to handle its 22-year-old subject (played by Michael B. Jordan), who was a small-time criminal who cheated on his girlfriend and had been fired from a job at a grocery store. All of these flaws are depicted in the film, but nevertheless “Fruitvale Station,” a debut effort from young filmmaker Ryan Coogler, tries to fit a halo on its subject, seemingly to play up the audience’s sympathies.

Even had Grant been the worst man in the Bay Area, of course, he should not have been shot in the back by a cop while lying face down on a subway platform, and the film’s implicit plea that all human lives are special and deserving of basic dignity is a compelling one. But should a film about politically charged events that happened only four years ago simply fabricate incidents for dramatic effect?

Coogler has already admitted he made up a scene that shows Grant lovingly coming to the aid of a dog hit by a car, and staying tenderly by the pit bull’s side as it expires. Coogler gave a garbled and unsatisfying explanation to the Huffington Post when pressed: “That’s not the intent, to show that this guy’s a great guy. That wasn’t the intention at all. And that’s fine, that’s the risk that you run with a scene like that. I can tell you what the scene was about and why it’s there — because, it’s funny, it’s a very polarizing scene. Some people get the intention and it’s their favorite scene in the movie. Some people hate the whole movie because of the scene. Like, ‘I feel manipulated.’” Coogler went on to make the point that pit bulls are supposed to be symbolic of unjustly feared young black men.

Coogler also fabricated a scene in which Grant, a convicted drug dealer, throws away a bag of marijuana to indicate to the audience that he will be a changed man with the new year: The first few hours of Jan. 1, 2009 would be his last spent alive.

Nor is there any compelling evidence that one of the police officers arresting a group of young men, including Grant after a scuffle on a BART train, punched Grant in the face. Nor did Grant participate in a joyous, life-affirming group dance on the train in the final moments of 2008. As Variety’s review noted, “Even if every word of Coogler’s account of the last day in Grant’s life held up under close scrutiny, the film would still ring false in its relentlessly positive portrayal of its subject.”

More damning, though, is not what the film falsifies but what it leaves out: Though Grant is shown becoming alarmingly aggressive in the grocery store, there is no mention of the fact that he was once convicted for illegal possession of a handgun. And by leaving out the details of the actual shooting, the film hopes to create a strong impression that Grant was a victim of racist cops, closing with a plea for “justice for Oscar,” which seems to be thinly-veiled code for a second, federal Civil Rights trial for the cop who has already been convicted in the slaying.

Activists call the slaying an “execution.” But there is simply no reason to think Johannes Mehserle, the then-cop who shot Grant and was the first California police officer to be charged with murder in the course of making an arrest, did so out of depraved indifference or racial animus. Even if Mehserle had been a horrible racist who had gotten out of bed that morning vowing to kill an unarmed black person, why would he have done so in front of dozens of people, many of them filming the incident from a distance of a few yards on a well-lit transit platform?

Mehserle’s defense was that he thought he was reaching for his Taser instead of his pistol, a claim that is presented as faintly absurd in the closing titles of the film. But in reality one of Grant’s friends in Fruitvale Station, Jackie Bryson, said he heard Mehserle say he was going to use his Taser on Grant “a couple of seconds” before he did so. Mehserle stepped back (a move consistent with operating a Taser) and after firing the fatal pistol shot immediately displayed a look of anguish and horror, many witnesses said.

Grant was resisting arrest by Mehserle, his body was coming up off the platform, and Bryson said both that Grant’s right arm was pinned under him and that he heard Mehserle shouting at Grant to show his arms. Moreover Grant (unmentioned in the film) had already fled from, and eventually been Tasered by, a cop after a 2006 traffic stop.

The death of Oscar Grant, then, was not a vicious or depraved attack of the kind that should spark rallies and riots and federal charges. It was instead a monstrous accident caused by a decision made in a split second in a chaotic and potentially dangerous situation. Grant might well have turned out to be a fine young man, but even if he didn’t, this low-level criminal did not deserve to have his life taken from him so soon. Yet the movie about the last day of his life treats the facts as disposable in pursuit of a larger point about justice that simply isn’t justified.

Correction: An earlier version of this article stated that there is “no evidence” that a police officer punched Grant in the face. In fact there are conflicting views on the matter. From one angle, it appears that the officer might have punched Grant, but the officer’s lawyer points out that from another angle it is clear that the officer was using an open hand to pull the back of Grant’s head forward.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

It’s interesting how few critics have taken the step of actually questioning how much of this movie reflects reality. So many of them just take it all as fact, perhaps because it fits in their worldview. I’ve always been of the mind to challenge what’s presented to me, even when it fits my worldview (if not more so). While Grant was certainly a victim and I feel for him and his family, I feel bad for Mehserle and his family after this movie. Sure, he was incompetent and made one of the biggest mistakes you can make as a cop, but he was not the racist murderer that this movie makes him out to be.

I don’t think the movie intended the officer to be seen as a racist. They were just telling the story of the unfortunate event w/an irreversible outcome and from a different perspective- a more personal & familiar perspective than telling an objective news event.

You have no sympathy for thugs and yet you are on an article that primarily focus on the “thug” you claim to despise. It seems to me you wouldn’t be nowhere near an article where thugs are the main subject. Do you hate them or secretly love them? Lets hope you didn’t waste your money to see the story of the thug you hate so much. Now, I’m sure there are plenty of other message boards for you to go to where you bash the hell out of Trayvon Martin and blacks in general. I can already see where your mindset is at. The same people who make derogatory remarks against blacks all day long and yet your focus online is seeking out anything about the group of people you hate. #Next

He still didn’t warrant being killed. “Thug” or not, he was just on the train after celebrating a holiday & got into a fight. At the time, he wasn’t committing an intentional crime that should deserve his death.

The officer created his own ordeal (and for the other family) by his wrongful/very poor (i.e. stupid) action.

The biggest “thugs” are the mass murderers at schools, malls & theaters. They have ill intent. Or is your definition of “thug” pre-judged by race?

Uh I think condolences refers to sympathy given after death. Is that what you really meant to say to the cops family? No condolences for the family of the person who suffered a fatal gunshot wound IN THE BACK?

Everyone please forgive Ray Stark. I heard they had a keg at the kkk meeting he attended before writing his brilliant comments.

Your complaint that the movie is “loose with the facts” is just a poorly-veiled attempt to hide your politics. You seem like the type who loves films like “Black Hawk Down” and “Lincoln,” even though they’re “loose with the facts,” but this one won’t get a pass from you because it doesn’t align with your politics. And beyond the fact that most historical dramas depicting real events are “loose with the facts,” your interpretation of events is, in my opinion, totally arbitrary. This is just silliness.

I feel like we must have been watching a totally different movie. I don’t think that one person left the packed theatre without tears in their eyes. It wasn’t because we thought that Oscar Grant was a saint, it was because he had promise to be something better than he was. No man deserves to die that way.

You also act like this was a documentary… Did you forget it was “based on a true story”…. the key word is BASED… Based means having a foundation for (something); using as a point from which (something) can develop. He never claimed the whole story was a documentary. I assume it was around 85% fact and 15% fiction….

The whole point of the film was to allow the viewers to think about how we treat the people we love the most, and the people we don’t even know. These are questions that we need to be asking ourselves especially in this challenging time.

What an idiot.. we all know what based on a true story means! Please show me a film based on a true story that isn’t “Loose With the Facts”.. smh, small time writers wanting to stir up a little controversy by tugging at the hearts of bigots and idiots! I saw Mitt Romney do the same thing so I guess I’m not surprised..

What in the World does your commentary have to do with the fact that this man was shot in the back while laying face down on the pavement versus this movie trying to make him out to be an angel? Are you saying that because he was once convicted of carrying a handgun or that he was an un-wed philanderer that him being shot in the back was justified? If that be the case, we ALL deserve that fate, even you for NONE of us are perfect. You and people like you that think you are holier than thou will be judged just as sternly when your judgement day comes is the comfort that I hold fast to. God bless

And all of you that have no sympathy for “thugs” or what you perceive to be a thug, until you take that silver spoon out of your mouth and actually walk a few steps in the shoes of these “thugs” in the environment that bred them, you have absolutely no cause to judge so keep turning a blind eye to the system you and people like you have created, stay in your fancy homes furnished with all the creature comforts and sponsored by all the money made/stolen from off the backs of the ancestors of these “thugs” with your hypocritical selves.

“‘Fruitvale Station’ Is Loose With The Facts In An Effort To Elicit Sympathy…”

1. This commentator ignorantly refers to the director “fabricating” scenes in the film, when that is PRECISELY what is done routinely in film. “Based on a true story” means just that; I have never seen or heard of a film being billed as “A true story”.

2. Even if the director were strict in his presentation of the facts, OSCAR GRANT WOULD STILL BE A SYMPATHETIC FIGURE. The man was shot in the back while laying on the ground. And you can say it was an ‘accident’ as the officer was attempting to taser him, but the officer did not even need to do that as Grant was already on the ground and subdued.

3. Now for your ridiculous question as to why if Mehserle was such a horrible racist, would gotten out of bed that morning vowing to kill an unarmed black person and have done so in front of dozens of people, perhaps you should go into certain neighborhoods in the Bay Area, and Los Angeles, and DC, and in New York City and ask some people whether or not cops they’ve encountered care about cameras or who saw them when they did dirt and committed atrocities. Whether people are watching or not is not the determining factor as to how racism/white supremacy manifests and governs people.

This article was a complete waste of effort, and is not in any way compelling towards any meaningful argument.

The rule I have for judging the veracity of “based on a true story” films is simple: Would this story be as compelling if it were complete fiction? If the answer is yes, then I frankly don’t care about what parts are true and what parts are made up. But if the film bases much of its dramatic weight on its non-fictional nature and then proceeds to make up or heavily alter most of its big moments (think A BEAUTIFUL MIND, or THE HURRICANE), then I darn-well take it to task for said fictions.

Oh, you people. Always so technical in an attempt to demean a person of color’s life. And you would think an unarm man being executed while laying on his stomach would be enough to elicit sympathy simply because this was a life taken in such a senseless manner. You people act as if the general public is so damn ignorant that we wouldn’t have a clue what “Base on a true story” actually means. As for the so-called fabricated parts, they were minor. The MAJOR parts of Grant’s final moments were very real and not something manifested in the mind of the screenwriter to “elicit” sympathy for Grant. And any person who saw the actual footage of Grant being shot can clearly see he was subdue on the ground and not resisting arrest. So I don’t understand how the so-called reviewer got this idea that Grant was resisting arrest before being executed by the police officer. In addition, prior to Grant being arrested, the video shows him being punched in the face by another officer and thrown to the ground. So, how in the hell were these major and REAL events fabricated? You want to bitch and moan about the minor fiction in this film, fine. Do so. But when it comes to the actual facts of what happened in Grant’s final minutes of his life, no need to get your panties in the bunch. That was very much real. And if you want to take to task every damn historical fact of any film base on a true story, then skip this genre of films altogether. Oh wait, you don’t necessarily have a hissy fit when the film showcases a predominately white cast. No need to take that to task. Hahahaha. Love how you people get on your moral soap box whenever blacks are the central focus.

All in all this is a typical review from a conservative. Always find a way to belittle and demean the life of a black person from the inner city in a controversial case. I guess the author miss the fact the movie was base on the last day of Grant’s life, so why was there even a mention of an incident that happened in 2006? People know Oscar was no saint, so there’s need to find any and every bit of information to somehow make it deserving of Grant to die in the manner that he did. As the actual case itself, it’s always convenient to leave out other testimony from witnesses to somehow boast your claim that the Grant was resisting arrest, being defiant, and all things thuggish I suppose. I can’t determine or waste time on the exaggerated blackness perspective you people develop in your minds about individuals who don’t fit into your worldview. Sighs, I guess it is simply ingrain in the psyche of most whites to lack empathy for people who don’t share their pigmentation.

All in all this is a typical review from a conservative. Always find a way to belittle and demean the life of a black person from the inner city in a controversial case. I guess the author miss the fact the movie was base on the last day of Grant’s life, so why was there even a mention of an incident that happened in 2006? People know Oscar was no saint, so there’s need to find any and every bit of information to somehow make it deserving of Grant to die in the manner that he did. As the actual case itself, it’s always convenient to leave out other testimony from witnesses to somehow boast your claim that the Grant was resisting arrest, being defiant, and all things thuggish I suppose. I can’t determine or waste time on the exaggerated blackness perspective you people develop in your minds about individuals who don’t fit into your worldview. As for police officers not doing such atrocities in front of other people, travel to inner city neighborhoods where residents witness (myself included) police officers doing horrific acts with a care in the freaking world about who is watching or filming. Sighs, I guess it is simply ingrain in the psyche of most whites to lack empathy for people who don’t share their pigmentation.

There are so many problems with this review it is hard to know where to start. But I’m going to anyway.

Point ONE – To say that the shooting of an unarmed HUMAN BEING (someone’s father, someone’s son, someone’s brother) in the back is a horrendous accident is offensive, ignorant, callous, and unfeeling! If you’re from this planet, you need help my man.

Point TWO – There has never been a bio or real life story based script written that is 100% factual and doesn’t’ at some point (usually several points) play loose and fancy free with the facts. I am an actor and most recently a director and I can tell you in researching characters and stories that what ends up on film or in the story is never exactly what happens. Real life events are usually pretty boring (see court room trials) so the artist and or producers always take liberties to “juice up” the story. We all know this and the vast majority of people accept it. No one goes in expecting a documentary if in fact it’s NOT A DOCUMENTARY! That’s when you have the burden of proving up your facts and keeping it 100% real!

Point THREE – In no way was the cop who ACTUALLY shot Oscar depicted as a racist. He is only on screen for 2 or 3 minutes at most and barely utters a word other than “get back” or “sit down”. His partner on the other hand is painted much darker and edgy and they actually have him repeating back to Oscar the “N” word. Most likely embellished but again an artist’s choice in telling a compelling story.

Point FOUR – There are too many BUTS in your review! You say Oscar didn’t deserve to die, BUT he served time therefore… (fill in the blank). You say Oscar was the victim of a horrible accident BUT he was charged with possession of a firearm therefore… (fill in the blank). You say Oscar blah blah blah but he was resisting arrest therefore… (fill in the blank).

Point FIVE – You need to get YOUR facts straight if you want people to take you seriously. Nobody is trying to make this young man out to be some type of hero. He was supremely flawed (we all are to varying degrees… …it’s called BEING HUMAN). Everyone knows that BUT (couldn’t help myself) he was a human being who deserved better than what he got the night he died. He deserved to be treated with respect EVEN if he wasn’t giving any (Police officers are trained to deal with uncooperative subjects. Killing them is not part of the training unless the subject is a threat which if you simply watch any of the MULTIPLE recordings taken of the incident you will see that he was maybe guilty of running his mouth too much. This is America. Running your mouth shouldn’t be a death sentence).

You are hurting America my man, you and everyone like you who refuses to see right for right and wrong as wrong. While race is almost always a factor in these types of situations, an educated experience adult such as yourself should be able to simply see the “humanity” of the situation and call it for what it truly is… …and is not. You are leading uneducated, ignorant Americans down a wrong path and that is what is dividing and destroying this great nation of ours. And it should be a crime because you are adding to the environment that says a black person’s life is not as important as a white person’s life. And eventually there will be another Oscar Grant or Trayvon Martin. And what will you say when the next guy has never been to jail, never been arrested, had a good job, never smoked pot. What then? Oh I’m sure you’ll think of something.

I think that you have a very simple view of the human. The point of the movie wasn’t to gain sympathy but to humanize him. These men who may have served time for whatever criminal offense, also have families who love them, also have importance to people around them, they have vices, they laugh, they care, they make people smile, they’re normal human beings. They’re sons, fathers and brothers. Those are the aspects the director wanted to highlight around Oscar Grant, because those are the things that are often overlooked. That’s what he wanted to bring to the story of Oscar Grant and to perhaps change how the public views many men who are just written off as “thugs”. That they’re human too. But I think you just didn’t get it. And I ask you: What IS wrong with sympathizing with a father who was shot face down, unarmed and guilty of no crime??

Your comments tell me more about you than your bio ever would! Claim of Racism is not a card you confidently pull when a particular situation doesn’t suit or benefit you! Lets examine what is true racism and how it impacts our society daily. Racism is a very unique dislike for someone you don’t actually know but the idea of ill will or malice harming that individual does not bother you! Oscar was young man experiencing the problems of growing up deprived of a middle class lifestyle . I myself have made some of the same mistakes Oscar Grant made but I found a turning point when I got to college whereas today I actually live a very different upper middle class lifestyle today. Mark Wahlberg the actor made even worst mistakes than Oscar Grant(breaking a man jaw unprovoked) but look how his life turned out! For you as a writer insinuate that a involuntary manslaughter conviction and 11 months in Prison should be consider the officer’s debt paid to society for an innocent man’s life is a true travesty ! How about this Maybe if Mark Wahlberg’s neighbor had decided to exercise his right to utilize the Stand your Ground Law just maybe the film world or fans would have never come to know Mark Wahlberg or Marky Mark!

I’m glad to hear the point of view from the polices officers LAWYER. I’m sure the lawyer does not have a biased point of view. At least you noted this addition to your idiotic statements at the end of you piece.

The small mindedness of your piece is nothing short of astonishing. You choose to harp on the fact that the movie makes no specific mention of oscar grant’s possession of a weapon at the time of an arrest that occurred years prior to his shooting and split hairs over whether a police officer roughly pulled oscar grant’s face down or struck him in the face. Multiple videos show that the officers might not have hit oscar grant in the face, but they did throw his friend to the ground and act quite violently. Maybe they felt that is what they needed to do to control the situation but their use of force seemed excessive to me. But all of that MISSES THE POINT. A MAN DIED. His nine year old daughter will have to grow up without a father, his mother without a son, his girlfriend without her lover. I could go on but I think the point is clear. You show your disgusting understanding of the situation when you point out that the family won money in a civil (????!!!!!??????), as though that lightens the blow of losing a loved one? The Police officer served TWO YEARS FOR KILLING A MAN. You don’t see the injustice? You think that’s okay? You think a movie immortalizing the life of someone who unjustly lost it does not have value because it does not go far enough to exonerate a police force that bears responsibility for the shooting? Or maybe you think our society gives to much sympathy to its African American population? The same population that fills overcrowded prisons disproportionately, bears the burdens of sky-high unemployment, and, yes, faces police discrimination and brutality (stop and frisk as prime evidence). Or maybe you just believe these issues aren’t real issues and are all coincidences and that is why you decry a well made movie that sheds some light onto them? Regardless of how your small mind justifies these injustices it makes me sad you have a forum to proliferate your opinions.

Forensic analyst? That is another name for a person who is hired as an expert and who will say whatever the law firm who hired him pays him to say. I have my own eyes. I am not blind. I do not need a forensic analyst to tell me what I can clearly see. Forensic analyst’s opinions are are best when you cannot clearly see the video and have no eye witnesses. Here there were non police witnesses who testified Pirone struck Grant for talking to the female officer. That exchange hyped up Mehserle and caused him to lose it (his mind) and shoot Grant. This reminds me of the Emmett Till case when the 14 year old Chicago kid was murdered for allegedly talking disrespectfully to a woman in Mississippi.

I wonder if perhaps you have yours reviews mixed up with the unseen and not produced documentary of the events. Fruitvale Station is a movie based on a true story just like the movies Lawrence of Arabia and Cleopatra. Of course the producers are going to fly fast and loose with some of the facts for dramatic effect, it’s called poetic license.

Thank you for writing. Lawrence of Arabia and Cleopatra were not based on events that happened only four years previously and did not end with pleas for political action on the part of the audience. How can you ask an audience to respond in the real world if what you have presented is not factually scrupulous? How is the audience supposed to make up its mind about what action to take until it has the facts of the case straight?

I believe the “facts” of the case are contradicting on many levels depending on who is speaking. It seems the only things that are facts to you are the ones that support your contention. I would call them opinions but that would be too fair and logical.

You are not being clear about why you wrote this article. First you argue the merits of the film and review the ethicality of a movie that’s “based on a true story” and does not only include the hard facts. To this I say that the director adding in material for emotional appeal is not unheard since the movie is mostly true and “BASED ON A TRUE STORY”. Furthermore, just as the movie takes liberties with the events, so do you. You are questioning the people’s right to feel offended by this tragedy and you downplay the fact that the officer in question served less than a year in prison. People go to jail longer than that for being in the same car as someone with marijuana..

It seems to me you take bigger issue with the fact that this movie is based on a very recent event and you fear that audiences will take it all in like an encyclopedia. Sadly, that may be the case for an uninformed minority who would base their opinions on a film dramatizing (yes, films sometimes have drama) a real event. But as you write your article you begin to make your own conclusions of what happened on that day. You are pushing your own credibility when you say that the “larger point about justice that simply isn’t justified”…

That is when I knew for certain that you did not bother to put this story in its FACTUAL context of police brutality. You say that the movie was wrong to call action to a recent “political” event. But who are you to tell people whether anything warrants their response? You are right when you say it was not a vicious racial attack. But a man being pinned to the ground and shot to death is exactly what it looks like. So, Mr. Smith, when you have your own reservations about these events remember that you are only a film critic and not a judge.

Kyle, how many other “true story” films have you lambasted for accuracy issues. This is why these films are “based” on a true story. The meat is still there even though its mixed with drama to hold the audience. To show that you are not biased against Black peoples story of justice and life. Did you do a review on the 911 movie and the zero dark thirty movie and all of its inaccuracies, point by point. I doubt you did or will do that. That would be a great challenge to take on the more dominate white culture of whom you are a part of, whose national mindset is set in a certain direction. Thank you for showing once again that the double standard of racism is still alive and well, even as it hides behind so called dedication to “facts”only when it supports the Racist premise.

What exactly is “white culture”? Can you describe it? What are the characteristics, and how are they different than other cultures that live within U.S. borders and yet share many of the same values as us in the “white culture”?

I think it’s you who’s confused about a “double standard”. Countless different cultures exist within the white race, many of them evident in the first generation immigrants who come here, but the “dominate culture” is not white – it’s mixed. It’s extremely diverse and includes adopted music, food, practices, dances, and values that did not originate from this fictitious “white culture”.

Kyle’s critique has nothing to do with race except in reference to the purpose of the film: to stir up racial division. You’re perpetuating trumped-up racial outrage when no evidence exists that suggests this was a racially motivated crime. At best, it was a horrible mistake that resulted in an unnecessary death of an innocent human being. At worst, the police officer who was involved discharged his weapon on purpose and with malice, and I hope he receives the punishment he deserves.

Don’t be so naive. And if you must, don’t let the rest of the world know so easily. Save something for yourself, will you?

“Kyle’s critique has nothing to do with race except in reference to the purpose of the film: to stir up racial division.”

There’s no need to stir up racial tension. It’s always here. It never left. It’s in the air we breathe, in the food we eat and finally through the unfortuante and prejudice eyes that allow people to look down on others simply because of something as silly as complexion.

Isn’t it amazing how people say what isn’t racism when it comes from someone outside that race. I don’t care what anyone’s race is no one deserves to get shot in the head when they are already restrained. I know law enforcement better yet I have that background. But come on to continue to mention he was arrested and what not. Then you go on the keep on saying what and how the writer did the story. I bet the writer wish he could talk to Grant and get all the info. Based doesn’t mean all the info is actual. When it say based off of actual invents means they talk to more than one person. Regardless of how and what happen the video says it all. Race does play into some of how law enforcement acts. If you don’t believe that then you are totall ignorant.

Sir, before I began let me say first and foremost Oscar Grant’s death is a tragedy and my heart goes out to all those affected by it, this should not have occurred so please remember that as I go along. I have been in law enforcement for over 25 years and I’ve done nearly everything on my mid sized department from patrol to academy instructor. I saw the movie, I was watching the day this tragedy was being reported nationwide and from as much info as I could gather with all my knowledge and training my conclusion is plain and simple….The officer shot Oscar by accident and this sadness boils down to ineffective or poor training on the part of the department and officer, but here is my problem…YOU. You typify a very common trend among black America that if a young black man is shot and killed by police(particularly a white officer) there is automatically racist intent with little care or concern for the FACTS and you sir are a festering malicious plague that stands to corrupt our future into believing that ALL cops are like this. April 3rd 1991, that is a day I will never forget for as long as I live. I was in foot pursuit of a armed black suspect who just happened to run into the crowd at a popular African American nightclub attended mainly by young people, suspect insight I grabbed for him as he tried to get something(later determined to be a 9mm handgun) out of the front of his waist but he dropped it, suspect in custody the crowd immediately began to turn on me even pulling the suspect away from me yelling police brutality of course the suspect seeing an opportunity get away began to encourage them on but fortunately plenty of backup got there shortly afterwards as the crowd continued to call me everything but a child of Allah. It burns me to this day because I could not tell those people that the man they just sided with without knowledge or reason had been caught in the act of savagely raping twin sisters in the presence of each other not far from we were, I could not tell them that one of the sisters was in a cruiser crying, bruised and battered from being pistol whipped and had been brought to the scene to positively identify the suspect as her sister was being rushed to the hospital for severe internal injuries nope I had to put on a smiley face as my people call me everything from uncle Tom to sellout to someone who apparently enjoys having sex with his mother. Why was the crowd so supportive for a criminal and wanted to rip me apart? Here is some research for you Mr Muhammad keeping in mind the date of my incident, California, March 19th 1991. I have the unique benefit of identifying police corruption, brutality and racism from a view you might not from a personal and professional point of view and I know the difference between a flick in the face as a distraction technique versus the untrained eye’s assumption that a slap to the face has occurred(there is a difference) and I too as a young man has fallen for the “okie doke” before( Tawana Brawley for one) but I encourage you to use all elements of a incident clearing your mind of any and all prejudices before throwing in the racist card. You can say what you want but I believe there isn’t a day that goes by that the officer doesn’t regret his actions. I’m sure by now you have figured it out but just in case you haven’t I’m black, proud of it and have been all my life. P.S. prior to this incident I had encouraged my department, to no avail, to teach the officers using the taser to wear it on their weak side forcing the officer to “cross draw” which is a very distinct draw and very hard to confuse with a strong arm draw(normal draw) the acts alone gives the officer those tiny fractions of a second to think which makes a huge difference when it come to lethal force, with information from this tragedy I resubmitted my concern and within a week of this incident if became standard training with me writing the lesson plan, a good cop doesn’t just learn from his mistakes he learns from ALL mistakes and he trains to never repeat any of them.

Where exactly was this “halo” of Oscar Grant? Fruitvale Station was based on general facts from Oscar’s life that revealed his incarceration, drugs, and out of wedlock struggles toward a stable lifestyle. The fabricated incidents you mentioned such as the dog incident and drugs being dumped just gave the story some direction and hope for a young father who was trying to progress. To downplay the death of Oscar Grant by saying his death was not a vicious or depraved attack of the kind that should spark rallies and riots and federal charges, despite being held down and shot questions your perception of all Blacks in America.

Wow Kyle Smith. I’m calling you out! I’m so sick of you types. (Oh, I’m not racist, I’m just prejudice.) So, how many white people get shot and murdered the way Oscar did? You are bias about this movie. “The death of Oscar Grant, then, was not a vicious or depraved attack of the kind that should spark rallies and riots and federal charges.” Dude, are you kidding me? The movie has been rated great by pretty much everyone else and you diss it for some adding a bit more entertainment value…(Like every movie in the world.) You know the point this movie is trying to prove and your going to be so dogmatic and say that this WHOLE movie is false. I had to read this review over 3 times. I see that you talked to the mans lawyer. Did you even try to talk to anyone else about it? Say a person related to Oscar, or perhaps a person of Color about it before you even wrote this? No? Probably because you don’t talk to people of color? Sure the cop ACCIDENTALLY reached for their pistol instead of getting the taser….. SURE, because cops have NEVER done racist horrible things to black people! You expect us to believe that load of crap? You haven’t answered any of us down here Kyle. Why, because we are non-existent if we don’t agree. Lame, don’t write on movies, books or music that has to do with different races and stick with things you MIGHT know about because this is just another example of a typical right-wing douche. If I’m wrong, please provide a comment to me and the rest of us who won’t believe your B.S. If anyone should get the taser, it should be you because Oscar’s family won’t EVER get Oscar back and this post was such a MOCKERY to his family!

“It was instead a monstrous accident caused by a decision made in a split second in a chaotic and potentially dangerous situation. ”

You come across as an apologist for the police, focusing on ripping the movie and not one word on how the police failed. The police should have de-escalated the situation, seeing that the young men were largely subdued and not posing a real threat. Even when Mr. Grant raised up, there were many officers right there, so no need for escalating the emotions. Perhaps an article about the failures of the police would balance out this article?

You say that its so tragic that the young man was killed, and that he didn’t deserve to die no matter what happened in his past. Yet your article casually mentions negative things about the young man, he cheated on his girlfriend, he was arrested for gun posession. So what? That’s irrelevant.This cop made a “simple ” mistake by shooting an unarmed kid and killing him. Are cops not trained thoroughly to act in this situation? As a black man, could I tell a jury that I killed someone by mistake and not get life in prison? try to answer that question honestly please. You mention that this killing is wrong, but the undertones of your article seem to attempt to discredit someone who is actually an innocent victim of a horrible crime. If his past isn’t relevant then why mention it? I’ll tell you why. It’s the racial undertones of your article that are offensive. Not enough to be blatant, but veiled with a slight disclaimer that he didn’t deserve to die, yet he was just another ” young black criminal” so it really isn’t that bad after all is it? If it were an innocent whale , or an innocent dog that would be ” so much worse” than one of these ” young black, low level ” criminals. It’s ok to shoot them dead, take them away from their mothers and families, their children. hell, they all belong in prison anyway right? It’s a sad thing that in 2013, a new millenium, this nation can still have enough idiots within it to think that the color of someone’s skin says anything at all about who they really are. This “ veiled” racism and lack of value for the lives of our black children cannot and will not be tolerated. We will not stand by and let our children be slaughtered, and have idiots like you try to paint them as criminals even if they happen to be human beings who have made mistakes in the past. Shame on you Kyle Smith. Let’s see if you would feel the same way if it were your son, or your brother, I think not.

My name is rumph. i have been looking for a loan for the past years now and no one was been able to lend me a loan until i get to meet a company called Parker Morison Funds who lend me the loan of $160,000 which i use to settle all my debt all thanks goes to the company, if you need a loan in any kind do not wast time to contact this company cause they will make you dream come to pass, kindly contact them now through this email at: Parkermorisonfunds@gmail.com once you contact them you will get your loan in a good faith from them.

Wow is what immediately comes to mind. I see that racism is still alive and well. One’s character is not up for conversation when it comes to living or dying. I don’t think that anyone on this earth has the right to judge. A sin is a sin, people. When someone makes bad decisions in life that doesn’t warrant an end to their life. This guy didn’t deserve to get shot execution style because he was a criminal. Personally, I wouldn’t care if this man had ten felonies. His life isn’t then deemed less valuable to you folks that feel the need to scrutinize his past. That ex-cop isn’t God and cannot decide when some one’s life should come to an end. Two years was definitely a slap to many minorities’ faces. It broadens the gap that inner city people and the police have. There’s no trust in the justice system. A cop, who is an ordinary person, can take a life and then get a simple slap on the wrist. This teaches our children that if you wear a uniform you can get away with murder. So the officer showed remorse. Good. It shows that he has a conscious, but it does not excuse his actions. The officer served his time right? Let him go back to his life, right? He’s paid his debt to society. Okay, fine. Well, couldn’t that same argument be used to defend the dead man Oscar Grant? After all he’s the victim here. And yes his family was well compensated by the city. Isn’t that only fair? Their family member was murdered unjustly. Will that money heal all their wounds? I doubt it. In a nut shell, you, the person that wrote the article is a racist, and I stand by my statement. Don’t try to justify what cannot be justified. Stop spending your time complaining and defaming a dead man’s character. We all know that every movie that is based off a true story isn’t going to be a 100% accurate. Still, the message is very much true. Your entire article is proof within itself that although we’ve progressed as a country, we still have plenty of road ahead of us. I believe that you are biased and that no matter the situation your outlook would remain the same, and the fact that you right for such a well respected company speaks volumes. If it was up to me people like you would not have a voice!

The fact that you that you say “but even if he didn’t, this low-level criminal did not deserve to have his life taken from him so soon”. In that way makes me think that movies point was lost on you. The point was for someone like you to not look at him as a low level criminal but a man like any other with people who love him, who did not do anything wrong, you look at him as this kid who probably deserved it. Because the movie I SAW has him in prison not being very nice to his mother at one point. Showing he’s a drug dealer, cheated on his girlfriend. It’s a two hour movie we don’t have to show every bad thing he did. I got it that he wasn’t a saint. So why do you need to assassinate his character? Why does the fact that he ran from cops in 2006 even matter? Unless you are trying to make the case and say see he deserved it. I don’t know what video you saw. But I saw the videos. You say he was resisting arrest. Have you ever thought if someone was basically stepping on your neck would you stay down on the ground to let them continue strangling you? If he was wiggling it was a natural reaction. The real problem with that situation was they forcibly threw him down for no reason. His hands were underneath him after they threw him down and if someone is strangling you and on top of you how can you move your hands? Have you asked that? I SAW THE VIDEO!! YOU either have to be blind, stupid or racist to not think that was absolute abuse of power.I don’t think he thought he was going to kill this guy. But the way they were acting was way over the top to begin with. Why do you think people started filming? But that is my point. You and people like you are blind and can’t empathize because of your own racism. Although you claim otherwise the truth of the matter is to you he was this low level criminal who probably deserved it

I’m on neither side of the fence about this subject being that it is all just speculation. But I think it’s wrong for the author of this article to continually attack this films “sympathy” scences. For those who have actually scene this movie and paid attention, know there were several scenes that portayed him as a constant liar. I believe that “sympathy” wasn’t the intetion, it was injustice and simply shining more light on the story itself.

Mr Smith – I have read your article several times and still struggle to understand why you take such offense to the addition of the scenes with the dog and disgarded weed. I truly do not understand how the addition of those two scenes treats the facts as disposible. I truly do not understand how you came to that conclusion.

The film did not hide the fact that Oscar spent time in jail. Did the film really need to spell out “he was convicted for illegal possession of a handgun?” I’m a fairly smart person – I understood from the scene in prision that Oscar had been convicted of breaking the law. I got it. It was very clear to me that Oscar had made poor choices and bad decisions. I understood that he was less than pure – as are we all.

Essentially what you take offense to is the portrayal of Oscar Grant’s humanity. He was loved and he loved. Even in his imperfections, he had value and he mattered. His life mattered. Does it really mattered whether or not he danced on the train immediately prior to his death? Really? Had he danced would that somehow have indicated that his murder was even more wrong than it already is? I don’t understand what about that scene is so offensive to you.

The movie stuck to the facts that mattered – Oscar was shot in the back while lying face down, already restrained. That, Mr. Smith, is the murder of an innocent man. There was absolutely no reason for the BART officer to reach for either a taser or a handgun because Oscar was already restrained – and that officer already had backup from his peers. It is not as if the officer was alone in a crowd and had fear for his own life.

I have porceline white skin, stunningly light blue eyes, and my head is covered with cascading blonde curls. There is no way in hell – regardless of my criminal background or lackthereof – that I would ever have been handcuffed that same night on that same platform. That simply never would have happened simply based on my appearance.

Oscar Grant should still be alive regardless of the poor decisions he made during the first and only 22 years of his life.

Here in Chicago I run several mornings a week with men who are in the process of transitioning from prison back into society. I have learned that one of the most powerful things I can say to someone is “tell me your story.” Mr. Smith, may I suggest that as a journalist, you might want to hear peoples’ stories. Not only will you be instantly humbled, you will very quickly learn that life is shades of grey, not the black and white that you seem to think it is.

Catherine, I greatly admire your work, and as a former documentarian and current high school educator, my life has been dedicated to enabling people very different from myself to tell their own stories. In the process I have learned to try very hard to listen to all the stories that present themselves to me with the assumption that the teller is a valuable human being with a bit of truth about himself/herself and the world to share.

If we all could listen better to the stories that perhaps at first “offend our sense of decency” with that same positive assumption, we would all be treated to greater truths These greater truths can become greater insights into how to mend the fractures in understanding that lead to tragedy.

I think that the truth that Kyle Smith is trying to address is an essential part of discussion on the road to avoiding the types of tragic encounters addressed in this movie. I haven’t seen the movie. So I do not know yet whether I agree with your belief that the scenes in question are not misleading or with Mr. Smith’s that they are. Both your comments make me plan to see the movie. Your point about the importance of people having the opportunity to tell their own story resonates with me, as does Mr. Smith’s belief in the importance of truth when trying to bring about significant change.I think Mr. Smith’s article is about keeping a chapter open for the police officer’s story, and its truths. If the truth is that this police officer misjudged the level of danger of the situation and reached for a taser due to that misjudgment and in so doing ended a precious human life, we must hear the policeman’s story as well in order to find the ways to avoid the misunderstanding. For you or I to declare “that there was absolutely no reason for that officer to reach for his taser” and to suggest that doing so was the result of skin color, dehumanizes the police officer and takes from him the right to tell his own story. In addition it gives no clear path forward for others like him, who would never think themselves racist, but could see themselves making a similar fatal and ultimately unacceptable error.

Catherine, I so echo your comments. I only signed up to make a comment on this. I could not believe this commentary. Bottom line what happened, this should not have happened. Mr. Grant should be here today taking care of his daughter. The settlement they got will never take the place of him. I am sure if they could take him over the money they would. Yes, you do state that whether he was a criminal or not this should not have happened, but they other bias and hurtful statements you make negate anything positive you said. Truth be told I am sure if someone was to dig in your life they would find you may have had some minor infractions with the law as well. Have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Have you ever gone out with your colleagues after work and had maybe one too may cocktails? You may say that a speeding ticket can not compare to some of the things Mr. Grant may have done, but they are both against the law.

I remember when this happened. I was just as hurt then as I was when I saw the movie. I pray that no one from his family especially his mother or his daughter sees this commentary. I, just like Ms. Catherine feel like this commentary offends my sense of decency.

Mr./Ms. Cano if Mr. Smith is trying to keep the chapter open for the policeman’s side of the story it not the point. My issue is he does not have to bring up Mr. Grant’s shortcomings to do that. The police officer that shot him no any of the other police officers knew Mr. Grant or anything about him. They knew nothing about Mr. Grant’s past so bringing it up is irrelevant. Do I believe this officer set out to kill a black man on that day? No, I do not. I can even believe it was an accident. What I do believe that if this was a group of white young men instead of black young men, it would not happened like this. This does not come from someone who is trying to place the race card but from someone who has witnessed events like this and have seen the differences in which the two groups are treated.

If it had been a white kid and a black cop everyone who is ignorant enough to offer condolences to the cop and his family would feel very differently. And if you have a cop who cannot tell the difference between his gun and his taser, then there are going to be a hell of a lot more deaths. I’m pretty sure there is a difference between the two.

That’s probably why they make some Tasers neon color for a reason. If his alibi was true, then he is definitely inept/incapable to be a transit police. They need to stop having dumb/corrupt/killer cops out there & take the injustice out of justice.

After reading this article, a pure example that age doesn’t equate to wisdom. Furthermore how oblivious some people can be, or don’t care to know the role ethnicity plays in society. Maybe you don’t know any better, or you are the example of what is wrong with our society..the notion that a black person is guilty until proven otherwise as soon as he steps out of his house. This is an example of what is wrong with our society, when injustice happens, the black individual is automatically criminalized and disregarded as a human being. If you believe in the law and the justice system, even people who have criminal backgrounds have rights. What does any prior record/incident have to do with the fruitvale station incident and him getting shot in the back? By that logic any previous criminal who gets shot by an officer, it’s their fault it happened. There was no real justice granted in this case, the police officer served 11 months (to put that in perspective, Michael Vick served 19 months for his treatment of animals which by law, pets are viewed as personal property/objects) and no amount of money will bring back someone’s son/child, friend, sibling, father, etc. I could assume you agreed with the acquittal of the police officers in the Rodney king beating as well, since he wasn’t an upstanding citizen either.

“Some people hate the whole movie because of the scene. Like, I feel manipulated.’”..if people feel like they are manipulated for a dog scene or dancing on the train, well then those people are not intelligent enough to know the difference between “a based on a true story” movie and a documentary. This is a practice that has been going on in the film industry since “based on a true story” movies were made. Removing those scenes or adding the “facts” you present against Oscar that were not included in the movie, does not change the view of Oscar or the outcome of the incident. The audience still would leave the theater with the same feelings, except people like you. Maybe if the movie painted Oscar as an “A” student on his way to Harvard your article would have some substance to it, but this is not the case. The audience knows Oscar is not a role model, and as a lot of young black men that are living in poor communities, surrounded by a life of crime.

You present the “facts” that were left out of the movie and the small ones (dog scene and dancing on the train) that were fiction that were included. However the most damaging to your article and angle is that you conveniently leave out a fact against the police officer. 6 weeks prior to the Fruitvale incident, the same police officer that killed Oscar, as well as 4 other officers, were charged with police brutality to a 43 year old black man by the name of Kenneth Carrethers. Which begs the question, why was he still on active duty? In any event, does the exclusion of that fact from the movie change the outcome of the incident or the depiction of the individuals? Whether that fact was included or not, the message was still conveyed in the movie.

“The death of Oscar Grant, then, was not a vicious or depraved attack of the kind that should spark rallies and riots and federal charges. It was instead a monstrous accident caused by a decision made in a split second in a chaotic and potentially dangerous situation”. It is interesting that when it involves the killing of a black person, “color blind” mode goes into effect and it tends to be portrayed as an “accident”. There sure is an overwhelming number of “accidents” occurring in our society by police officers towards black people (to be clear, I’m completely being sarcastic). It is absolutely absurd that an officer doesn’t know the difference between a taser and a gun. Especially, when they had enough officers and had them all under control on the ground. Only police officers can use excuses like that (for ex. oh I thought he had a gun, but it was only a candy wrapper), and society always gives them the benefit of the doubt while the black person always gets doubted, and that’s part of the problem. So the cop was able to say he was going to use his taser on Oscar, step back, and never realize it was a real gun? Last I checked don’t taser guns have some type of yellow color indicators on them, and are located on the opposite side of their firearm? So now the officer can’t see yellow, and doesn’t know the difference between his left side and right side of his belt? This is similar to a criminal killing someone and pleading insanity. It was not a “chaotic” situation where the officer had a “split second” life threatening decision to make. One can argue that the situation didn’t even warrant the use of a taser. Lets not forget tasers are not toys, they do have the potential to kill people, and have.

Very well said Connor. Not to mention the fact that tasers are placed on an officers non-dominant side; the side of the firearm is placed on the dominant side (shooting side), so how could this officer (with all of the training officers supposedly receive) have gotten his taser and deadly weapon mixed up??? Not to mention the obvious weight, feel and color differences of the two items. Also, I believe the officers had already frisked every single person they believed to be involved in the fight before they placed them on the ground, therefore, they already knew Oscar was NOT armed, so again, how did this officers life feel endangered??? Mr. Kyle Smith, you are obviously not a true journalist as you wrote this story in a truly biased sense.

The parts of the movie that you speak on are very irrelevant to Oscar’s story, and even if they were removed from the movie, and I’d never seen those parts, the facts remain and what happened, happened. It’s beyond the dance party on the train or aiding the dog…

As a 21 year old black women, born and raised in the southside Chicago or “hood”, with 21 year old male Black friends who havent had the best behavior in their past, they have been in situations with the authorities where they in no way shape or form should have been treated that way. And just because they are police doesnt make it justice. just because the ex cop served 11 months in jail of his 2 year sentence, does not make it justice. just because his family received money from the case, does not mean justice. at the end of the day, their son, father, boyfriend, best friend, brother, etc, is dead and the man who killed him served 11 months in jail for it. people serve far less in jail for WAY lesser crimes than murder, ever single day. and let’s not even talk about “blue collar” crimes. this has nothing to do with the fact that trayvons case is going on either and shame on this writer for even trying touch that subject. The NAACP didn’t all of a sudden decide they want to fight for cases, this is what they’ve been doing, it’s just now making serious news. it’s about the injustices that people like Oscar go through every single day. in chicago, these deaths are LOCAL NEWS. And i’m sure this is the same around the wrong. it doesn’t get to the big screen, as a movie. It took 4 years for this story to reach me and to MILLIONS of people. 4 years. And it might take 4 years for a story about my friends who have died & havent gotten justice for it, or someone else’s friends’ story to reach MILLIONS of people. So damn this article, you want to talk about facts? Oscar Grant, was wrongfully murdered and that is a fact. focus on that. speak what you know of sir, just as I am. if you are so interested in facts, research the facts on how is it to even be Black in America. Take a step back on the small technicalities & look at the bigger picture, please. Awareness is vital, & this movie really helped with that, wether or not those parts of the story where made up or not.

Such a great article to read – it answered several questions we had in our review of the film: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2013/07/25/fruitvale-station-is-loose-with-the-facts-in-an-effort-to-elicit-sympathy-for-oscar-grant/

He shot an unarmed man in the back, took his life, something he cannot return. There is nothing manipulative about that, it’s a fact. Yes, so Mr. Grant was a small time criminal, Mr. Mehserle was a big time Murderer and an incompetent police(peace? )officer.

Fruitvale Station is one of the more important films to appear in the last 15 years. That Coogler’s work is many things, not least a depiction of life’s particular hardships for young people of today, seems lost on Kyle Smith who seems to review this movie with all the panache and skill of internet dweebs that scan miles of film looking for the untied necktie that suddenly becomes tied in the next camera shot. All the while thinking that the Godfather trilogy is a movie about petty Italian-American criminal types.

Few commentators other than Smith seem distracted by the fact that Coogler is struggling like all others from Edison on with the art of filmic story telling. But Coogler is clearly a talent in the making. Moreover, pompous and audacious comments such as “this low-level criminal (referring to Grant) did not deserve to have his life taken from him so soon” merely places Smith as part of that deep divide in lived experience that is present in our world today. Forbes can and must do better if it wants to present a real world analysis of the conditions that led to the poor police work, the lack of proper training, and the fear, aggression, and, yes, racism that were all part of those horrific events on a BART platform in 2009.

This is a film that is BASED on a true story. Unless the main character is still alive, no one could know all the actual events he did on his last day of life. As a piece of art, this film is entitled to some of its creative scenes to fill the movie (e.g. the dog & dance on the train scenes), while still maintaining the true story & main plot. I think the dog death scene was not to portray Grant as a good samaritan saving the dog, but was a creative scene that can be interpreted as foreshadowing, mirroring, and irony of what was to come for himself. It still is a movie, after all.

To believe the BART police for mistaking the gun for the Taser is something not to defend. To make a mistake like that is irreversible, grave and deadly (literally). The officer had poor action/decision and obviously needed re-training- on better conflict management/handling restraints, and knowing the difference between a taser and a deadly weapon. Even if his intent was to use the gun, it was not warranted at all since Grant was not threatening his life, especially if he was lying on the ground. Those watching the movie know he committed crime before, but nothing similar as the manslaughter that was unjustly and unfortunately done to him. His crime was drug-dealing, not cold killings (like what happens at school and malls, which to me, would justify such murder).

So I would like to decline the two free issues of Forbes if this is the quality of writing inside. I’m glad to see the responses have pointed out the flaws in the article are but I’ll add a couple more.

“All of these flaws are depicted in the film, but nevertheless “Fruitvale Station,” a debut effort from young filmmaker Ryan Coogler, tries to fit a halo on its subject, seemingly to play up the audience’s sympathies.”

Just read the first and second sentence together and think….I know if might hurt for a bit but try. The movie points out all or many flaws(sentence one), where is the halo part? Oh the dog scene etc..come on. In order to “fit a halo” wouldn’t they need to take out most if not all of the scenes that say,,,,, show him in prison or with drugs? The movie shows both good and bad sides to the subject. No halo apparent.

“….closing with a plea for “justice for Oscar,” which seems to be thinly-veiled code for a second, federal Civil Rights trial for the cop who has already been convicted in the slaying.

Was that thinly-veiled code? Seriously? I want to see the road map you took to get to that conclusion. Don’t you think you are jumping from point a to z on that one?

In all honesty as a 39 year old college educated professional this is the second worst article I have ever read in my life. It’s so misleading, possibly racist and definitely devoid of any sound logic or thought. Seriously, your conclusions and statements sound like they were badly developed by a 5th grader. You really should look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you are in the best profession to suit your talents. I really hope you have better areas of talent in you life.

I saw that movie and loved it. The bigger issue is not the racial overtones, but the fact that a man’s life was wrongfully robbed before his time. The director might have put in some fluff material, and stretched the truth, but in the end the message is the same. A man, a father, a son, a lover, was wrongfully executed for an unjustifiable reason. It reminds of an inverted version Camus’s “The Stranger”, where the narrative is following the victim. And to be honest, the author was not heavy handed at all with the race aspect, and he showed Grant as being a “street” dude with many flaws, far from the “Halo Angel” you claim.

Terrible article Kyle. So what he was once caught with an illegal handgun? And that he didn’t really participate in a “life affirming dance on the train”. That makes this whole movie “ring false”? Are you serious? A sadly racist article Kyle

Hey Kyle – Look, the kid was shot and killed by a police officer while offering no danger to that man. Who cares if some details of the movie were inaccurate? The principal facts stand. Its unfortunate that you are not showing more respect for the dead and for the victims of police brutality.

Eeeks …. It’s difficult to see the racism in other white people because it elicits our own unconscious racism as this article shows. The fact that this DID spark rallies, riots, and federal charges illustrates that a huge part of our society is in pain due to racial/economical divides. Sadly too many people take this author’s ‘white privileged’ point of view and would rather be in ignorance than live with the reality and grief that something is wrong and we need to open our hearts and minds to fix it.

Even if Coogley threw in scenes where Oscar’s forehead started to burn, a lightning bolt scar emerged, and he saved the local high school from dragons, at the end of the day the facts are on the table: innocent man, no weapons = dead. cop, taser, pistol = not dead. Your racism seeps through this article. Shame.

Wow… People are so dense when they can’t see past their own emotional preconceptions. The reason for this critique is simple, for all those wandering why it was written. The purpose of this movie was to depict a black man getting shot by a white man because… he was black. There’s no evidence of this racial motivation, but that’s the intended and not so implicit message of the film. The critique takes issue with THAT.

In order to properly override reason and logic, certain elements of Grants life needed to be embellished by the film maker so that the message (racially motivated killing) would have maximum impact at the climax of the film. The fact is that nobody, no matter their skin color should have to worry about a police officer killing them ostensibly in cold blood. It was a tragic incident that should not have happened, and as I said in another comment, I hope the police officer gets what he deserves (maximum sentence – if he’s found to have done it on purpose).

But again: Demanding justice, and stirring up hatred based on perceived racial motivations, are two very different things. Virtually every comment on this thread presupposes that racism was obvious (when it wasn’t), and that, because the author can’t read the police officer’s mind (as they can), he’s being insensitive to what happened… All the while the author began the story by saying “Even had Grant been the worst man in the Bay Area, of course, he should not have been shot in the back by a cop while lying face down on a subway platform…”.

Clearly, Kyle recognizes the grave injustice for what it was, but is concerned about all the racial outrage that is based on nothing more than preconceptions about white on black crime. A white guy kills a black guy and everybody assumes it’s racially motivated (in EVERY case)… and yet the same is not true vice versa. THAT is a double standard that makes no sense and nobody cares to question it because they’ve (seemingly) been conditioned to believe, at least on a sub-conscious level, that all white people are racist to some degree — it’s just that the white criminals who kill blacks are overt about it.

I honestly don’t see why people can’t calmly examine the claims made here and either agree or disagree based on their perceptions and the evidence they’ve seen. One commenter even said that the author should be tasered… Talk about hatred.

what an undercover racist review…go review a 911 movie you will find a heap of added fiction to true stories that then request public action. Not to mention movies like flight 93 were made shortly after such a huge terrorist attack. I’m so tired of this racism, what a primitive time period we are in. What a great age of man it will be when all races are truly mixed as one, racism will be finished!

Kyle you need to take the stick out of your hindpart. Focusing on what was fabricated and what wasn’t true is just you, being a jerk. All true stories are fabricated to some degree, no matter who or what it is. Unfortunaley, you missed the enitre point of the film. This was the Directors first film and despite what your narrow view is, he won more than you ever will in a lifetime. Find out what you’re really good at or find a bridge and jump.

“Grant was resisting arrest by Mehserle, his body was coming up off the platform, and Bryson said both that Grant’s right arm was pinned under him and that he heard Mehserle shouting at Grant to show his arms.”

Oscar, along with all of his friends who were made to sit on the station platform, had already been frisked for weapons prior to being seated, therefore, the officers already knew that Oscar did not have a weapon on him….so what was your point with this statement Mr. Smith???

Trying to “put a halo” on the victim and showing that the victim was HUMAN are two different things. Not that has past has squat to do with the fact that he was senselessly killed but I certainly did not get the impression from the film that the man was any sort of angel. I DID get the impression that he gave a sh– about people in his life and they gave a sh– about him. And that doing good or bad things doesn’t automatically make one a good or bad person.

And as far as the question of why would a cop kill an unarmed minority in public in front of dozens of witnesses– Are you living under a rock?? It CAN and HAS been done and police have certainly gotten away with murder and will continue to do so. Anyone old enough to talk in L.A. or NYC can tell you so. Not saying that was the intention of this particular officer, but whether it was or wasn’t is of no consequence– he’d have every reason to believe that he could get away with it b/c 9 times out of 10, they do.

Frankly I thought the movie was abundantly clear that Oscar Grant was not perfect, but rather had some striking flaws that he was in the process of working out. Even his process seemed pretty imperfect; you don’t go threaten your former boss in an attempt to get your job back if you were the crowned saint of Oakland. And one doesn’t show the character doing that if he’s trying to fit a halo on the man. In a dramatic narrative, one can’t focus on every little detail and expect to have a watchable story. Were his imperfections hidden, though? Absolutely not. Even hardened criminals who have passed the threshold of whatever Oscar Grant served time for have souls and love their daughters.

Why did you start your article off by giving credit to the producer, Harvey Weinstein? Most article’s credit the director, in this case Ryan Coogler. This is actually the first I’ve seen to start off by mentioning Weinstien, as if this was his passion project from the beginning. To be honest you lost me in that first sentence. As this is a racially charged subject, I felt like that said a lot about your position. I could be wrong. But its odd that the first article I’ve read that is criticizing the way the movie portrayed Oscar and makes the argument that the whole situation was just an unfortunate accident (which is only possible if you look at this in a vacuum and without historical/socio-economical/political context) is also the first article which credits the white producer over the black director. Harvey Weinstien didn’t even become involved until after the film had already premiered to rave reviews at Sundance

On the subject of guns and madness: If ever there was a poster boy for blood dripping madness it’s Mehserle. His mental breakdown on the witness stand was probably a good deal of self-serving bullshit but probably not far from the breakdown he had on the train platform. As information is released we’re almost sure to learn of cracks of violence and madness earlier in his life. Sending this guy away for a long time is certainly justified as the jury found fit to do. It was a judge who suspended the 10 year gun enhancement. Otherwise we’d all be a bit safer with Mehserle behind bars. Who was it that found this guy fit to carry a badge, much less a taser, a baton, and a high-powered firearm? None of the other responding officer performed any better. The race-baiting Pirone was useless in calming the situation and is fully responsible for escalating an already tense situation. The other Barney Fife-style incompetents are observed holding Tasers on young men who may not have even witness how the disturbance started. But dozens of others on that train car did. As opposed to Ryan Smith, I hope future court cases can shed more light and bring others to justice.

I just saw the movie, logged on to find an address to send his daughter a Christmas present, read your post and SO WHAT TO ALL THE RHETORIC! A MAN WAS SHOT DEAD, LEAVING A FAMILY BEHIND. NO MATTER HIS PAST, NO MATTER ANY OF THE JUNK YOU PRINTED. TELL ME THIS – WHOULD YOU WRITE SUCH NONESENSE IF IT WAS YOUR CHILD? I DOUBT IT, YOU WOULD ONLY EXPRESS THE SORROW OF A CHILD WITH A CHILD BEING MURDERED.

I like how you claim to know like its a fact that the officer thought he was shooting his taser… I’m not a cop haha but ROFL there is an obvious HUGE difference between how a 9mm feels and how a taser would feel in your hands… NOT TOO MENTION THE TASER IS YELLOW and made to be obviously different from the cops gun so these types of things should never happen. The fact that you claim to know what actually happened is enough for me to just not listen to anything you write haha because the facts remain you have no idea…

Putting aside the fact that this is a MOVIE, and that some parts of a movie based on actual facts will be fabricated, my issue is with the cop: Why is it necessary to taser a man (because the cop claims he was reaching for his taser, not his gun), after he is in handcuffs, after he was lying face down on the ground with 4 cops surrounding him? It makes no sense, and there is nothing to justify the cop reaching for his taser or any thing else. The justice system is obviously flawed, giving 11 months in prison to a person that deserves about 11 years at least.

If he was a drug dealer, or had a gun without a license, the BART police had no right to detain him. At the moment they knew nothing about him and he hadn’t done nothing. So why did they even detain him?

If you have another answer other than: “Because he was black so he looked suspicious”. Please do get back to me.

Great article. I was thinking many of the same things while watching. It certainly does seem like the Director went out of his way to portray these black folks and their lives/surroundings in a very unrealistic manner. The dog, helping the white chic in the deli, helping the white pregnant lady use the bathroom, his mom chastising him for talking on the phone while driving, the whole dance scene in the train, his fake smile. It just seemed like a puff piece by a director who wanted to portray black life in a way he wants white people to think black life is. It’s too bad because it really is a tragic story and if he had kept it more real, it could have been great like Training Day or The Outsiders, movies that didn’t shy from the truth about its subjects.

And don’t sweat the apologists. This movie has a very liberal bias and anyone who doesn’t agree will be lambasted.

To Jonathan. It’s a movie!!! How much more realistic do you want it to get?? Unless the VICTIM were still alive today to be able to direct an autobio 100% based on his everyday life -of course there are going to be scenes that did not happen. And what do you know about black life??? So, because they showed scenes with him helping white people in the deli and smiling a lot it’s totally false because that doesn’t fit the stereotype of black men, right??? What did you want the movie to show him aggressively running around robbing people and carrying around guns without a father or loving mother and family that loves him, because that would be more realistic and represent black people more accurately, right?

You and this author keep bringing up the dog scene which I do not understand, when I first watched it I got the message clear as day: it had nothing to do with race or trying to fit a halo on his character…it was symbolism! The pitpull dies and nobody gives a damn! but you people are way too wrapped in color blindness and ignorance that you cannot see your blatant racism in the comments that you make! Maybe you should take some time to re watch the film without trying to discount every positive aspect you see just because the character was a black man with some criminal history!

I live in Oakland. I have friends who are on both sides of this issue, both citizens and cops. It was quite realistic. You know, black people are human right? Black or white, they have lives much like white people. They help people. I can hear a momma screaming at her kid, “You better not be driving while talking on that phone.” Hey, didn’t have my whole life together at 22 either.

The dog bit I instantly knew didn’t happen. I also instantly knew it’s a metaphor. The senselessness of someone hitting a dog with their car and not even stopping. What human being standing there wouldn’t do something, anything, even if just to call out to ask for help? To assume a black person would as “unrealistic” is, well, just racism.

The dancing scene on BART, particularly on a night of revelry such as New Years, is actually quite common. A couple people get a boom box and before you know it, it’s a party. Hey, we all just left the bar. Everyone’s in a good mood. One time we played foosball. I’m not kidding you. I think that was 4th of July though. Too much artistic license for you?

I can also tell you that if my friends were on that platform and I were on that train, the cop would have no idea which one I was, because my skin color would just blend into the rest. That cop had absolutely no idea anything about Oscar Grant. Not his name. Not his background. Not his criminal record. They only think he knew about him was the color of his skin.

Check your privilege. If you get lambasted, don’t assume it’s because you don’t deserve it.

While the portrayal of their lives might be unrealistic to you, it is not unrealistic to the millions of blacks who actually live them. Yes I know this might be a shock to you, but there are blacks who help others regardless of race, yes black mothers do care enough about sons to chastise them for using the phone while driving, yes not all black people are poor, lazy, uneducated and criminals.

You have a strange view of what the lives of black people here in the states. The director wants to portray the lives of the people (who happen to be black) who were affected by this in the way white people are not used to seeing, but which is very real for those of us who live it.

Truth is you are right although not in the way you think that is not representative of all blacks, my life as a middle class black person who spent the first half of her life in Italy was nothing like that.

Your comments are exactly why this kind of movie is needed, but sadly also why it also seems useless, some refuse to be shown, what they don’t want to believe.

In this case that the life of a young black American might be worth less than the life of a young white American, right here in the land where “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” I guess this saying still applies only to ‘some’ men.

I just finished watching this film and was really taken with Michael B. Jordan’s performance and the confidence displayed by director Coogler. really shocked it was his first film. I had heard of the film throughout the year and was looking forward to seeing it but knew nothing of it or the incident fruitvale station. I had never heard about it. It no time did I think the movie put a “halo” around Oscar Grant. In fact, I was pleasantly surprised that they showed him warts and all; a quick temper, some small time illegal activity, cheating on his girlfriend, etc. In other words, an average guy, no saint, he has his good points and his bad. I never took the “dog” scene as being factual. i didn’t think of it one way or the other while watching the film, I just thought it was foreshadowing. I also didn’t feel the movie made a monster out of Johannes Mehserle. I believe the director and actor Murray portrayed him as scared and in WAY over his head. But regardless, he shot an unarmed 22 year old man in front of a dozen witnesses on New Years Day, 2009. Coogler’s intention was to put a face to one of the many young men who lose their lives every year in this country. And he did an amazing job of doing just that. I fail to understand any of your negative comments or what they have to do with this excellent film.

To the young lady who put Jonathan Robitaille in his place, thank you. To Jonathan Robitaille, you comment on Oscar Grant and his short comings however you forgot to mention yours but you clearly displayed yours, IGNORANCE. Oh and the whole lambasted part……..COMICAL.

Modern racism was never more clear. I don’t need more than the title of your article to know what you think about poor people, minorities or people who don’t read forbes. If your kind is writing here than I have no interest of reading this magazine.

‘A forensic video analyst’? That’s code for someone’s ‘professional opinion’ of the tangible evidence presented in a courtroom. The testimony of an expert witness should never be allowed in a courtroom (regarding physical evidence). It’s subjective & inherently flawed because it’s source is non scientific (human judgement). It’s ironic that the author of this ‘loose with the facts’ article would contend that someone’s subjective testimony is factual.

This was a thoroughly regrettable incident that ended up with a young life snuffed out and countless other lives permanently affected in an adverse way. A story like this didn’t need any embellishment of the known facts.

Oscar Grant was a young man with a checkered past out having a good time with friends. One way or another, a law enforcement officer ended up shooting him in the back. In an ideal world, skin color and socioeconomic status don’t even enter into the equation when trying to make sense of all this, but we don’t live in an ideal world.

I thought it was pretty clear what the director’s intent was in dramatizing the last day of Grant’s life, so in that sense, I guess I was more prepared to have a few grains of salt handy with me while watching.

A decent effort, but not one that ever needs to get conflated with real life. As a society, we have a hard enough time getting past such things in reality anyway.

I immediately doubted my initial view of this character- Grant the Great- when I read your article… Then, I felt ashamed and cynical (the whole bit). Then, I realized that most people – more so, their articles or output – are indifferent or maybe just unaware of the purpose of dramatic license. This is where reporting/journalism and filmmaking diverge: one sets out to disperse facts and information, the other illicit emotion. Both have their place and purpose in the world, however, every event multiplies into both factual and emotional reactions. Here for example, Grant is portrayed “with a halo” in arguably more than one “fictional” occasion in the film. BUT: there where undoubtedly people who encountered him, who loved him, who saw him that exact light (regardless of the exact situation, the emotion the same). Everyone’s story has the light and the shadowed truth- it all depends on where you stand.

Live in the Bay Area. Saw the very next day the video on the news. I could not believe what I saw. What I saw was the intentional killing of a young man, by a not-so-smart cop. What the film omitted was the deliberate provocation of not-so-smart cop by his superior. Forgot his name. The cop had an Italian sounding name. Whatever may or may not have been added or omitted from the film is irrelevant because filmmakers do it all of the time. Oscar Grant did not have to die. That the killer cop got off with a slap on the wrist is not justice. Reverse the situation and a black cop would have been crucified for killing an unarmed white youth. The excuse that the cop gave; that he meant to tase him is bs bs bs. Such an excuse is not only stupid, but also alludes to the fact that Bart police are no better than untrained rent-a-cops. It was murder pure and simple. Murder.

What is astounding to me is the level of ignorance that exist in the white community today and how many hate the humanization of those who they have long demonized.

The demonization of black men has persisted for 100s of years while the best face has been placed upon say, the first American settlers who were said to be persecuted because of religion, never mind the murderers rapist and thieves that were emptied out of European jail cells. Please don’t talk to us about distortion of truth!

All many of you want to see is the criminal history of a man as though his mistakes tell the whole story of who he is!

Is their a story behind this young mans behavior? Do any of you have a clue about the pathology of the black race? No! You just sit and judge and then hold your collective noses and sniff when glimpses of humanity are seen through the cracks of our troubles.

No we must remain confined worth in the bounds of your stereotypes and prejudice less you discover our humanity and feel some measure of compassion for us…

God forbid your distorted views be dashed and changed by such a portrait and view of those who you prefer to view worth contempt and disdain…

What the fuck is wrong with you, you fucking moron? You say “Of course he should not have been shot while lying face down on a platform” and then have the gall to follow that statement with the word “But . .. ” succeeded by a list of this man’s — this 22 year old man’s — supposed past missteps? WTF does that have to do with the cop shooting him for no good reason? You are the kind of human scum the world would best be without. I wish the cop had shot you instead, you shit for brains effete snobby mother fucker. Die slowly and painfully.

The small mindedness of your piece is nothing short of astonishing. You choose to harp on the fact that the movie makes no specific mention of oscar grant’s possession of a weapon at the time of an arrest that occurred years prior to his shooting and split hairs over whether a police officer roughly pulled oscar grant’s face down or struck him in the face. Multiple videos show that the officers might not have hit oscar grant in the face, but they did throw his friend to the ground and act quite violently. Maybe they felt that is what they needed to do to control the situation but their use of force seemed excessive to me. But all of that MISSES THE POINT. A MAN DIED. His nine year old daughter will have to grow up without a father, his mother without a son, his girlfriend without her lover. I could go on but I think the point is clear. You show your disgusting understanding of the situation when you point out that the family won money in a civil (????!!!!!??????), as though that lightens the blow of losing a loved one? The Police officer served TWO YEARS FOR KILLING A MAN. You don’t see the injustice? You think that’s okay? You think a movie immortalizing the life of someone who unjustly lost it does not have value because it does not go far enough to exonerate a police force that bears responsibility for the shooting? Or maybe you think our society gives to much sympathy to its African American population? The same population that fills overcrowded prisons disproportionately, bears the burdens of sky-high unemployment, and, yes, faces police discrimination and brutality (stop and frisk as prime evidence). Or maybe you just believe these issues aren’t real issues and are all coincidences and that is why you decry a well made movie that sheds some light onto them? Regardless of how your small mind justifies these injustices it makes me sad you have a forum to proliferate your opinions.

I find this article completely ridiculous. For one: Everything you said about Oscar, all the things he had done, including running from the cops before and having to be tasered years before this, you are implying the cop that shot him knew this, but he didn’t so none of that matters because they did not know anything about his past so come off it. Two, I saw this video and it blew my mind. Cops wear the taser on the left and firearm on the right, and a taser is made of plastic and the glock nine is made of metal and I have fired both weapons before and you can tell the difference in weight, feel, grip, everything so stop. This cop killed this man in cold-blood period, on his stomach with cops all around him, even the other cops were dumbfounded by it and you want to claim that because of his past, which the cops did not know about makes the story different and like I said, TASER-LEFT SIDE OF COP’S BODY, GUN RIGHT SIDE, and you want me to believe it was a mistake, do you really believe this. I think that yes this is hollywood’s version about Oscar’s life, but none of that matters, I could careless what he had done in the past because he was killed like a wild animal and there was no reason for it, explain all you want, you are wrong and a total moron for even suggesting the things you have because it makes not one difference to what happened the moment the cop stood up, grabbed his gun, and pulled the trigger. And before anyone asks I am white.

As someone who has been in Sophina’s shoes (except that I have not suffered her loss) I found this moving to be so powerful and scary all at the same time. I have known Oscars all my life and this story needs to be told. Many have never been stuck between trying to leave that life and trying to get a job and pay bills the hard way. Society has already labeled these boys/ men as “low level criminals” and doesn’t want them to do better. This movie is critical for young men to see how easy it is to end up in such a dangerous situation and how our reactions can lead to dire consequences- despite the injustice of those consequences. In the end the most important part of the entire movie is that little girl who lost the most- her dad- to her he was not a thug, nor a low-level criminal. Regardless of the ‘stretches’ with the truth- this movie has plenty of lessons to go around and lots for everyone who watches to learn.

Kyle Smith, are you serious? Have you seen the movie? It’s a MOVIE. It does not have to be factual. Oscar Grant does not come out looking like anything other than a small time criminal who’s trying to get his act together. Who cares what scenes Coogler may have added? The fact is, the real Oscar Grant is dead. And the cop who shot him, accident or no, is alive and well. So Grant paid the ultimate price. I say we should respect the young Coogler’s film and recognize that there are too many cop-related deaths that are not justified (the latest being Kelly Thomas, a young white homeless schizophrenic; the two cops who beat him to death got off scott-free).

I think you entirely missed the point of this movie. To be fair, I know it’s very hard to see through those tiny eye-holes they give you in the KKK hood. The good news for all of us is that I think I saw a Twilight Zone episode about what happens to people like you. It’s not gonna be good . . .

The bottom line is that a young Black man was shot and killed for no good reason. You can point out the things that are not true in the story but the truth is that Oscar Grant was murdered. Do I care if he and his friends did not dance at the station? No, of course not. Do I care that the dog scene was not true? No. Did I see in the movie a kid that had problems and one who was no saint? Yes. I, as a white elderly woman, am distressed and appalled that the author of this piece of nonsense would try to lessen what was done in Oakland on Jan 1, 2009. I felt his family’s pain. I saw another in a line of millions of Black people, murdered because of his color by people who, laughingly, should protect him. Another reason, today, on MLK Day, to remember why so many Black people have no hope and to keep on hoping that Martin’s dream will eventually come true. Forbes should be ashamed of this review!

It is amazing that a critic will nick-pick on the creative license of a director on film whose subject matter may bring about unwanted guilt. Yes, the director used creative license in the movie on the two above scenes. But, did that really change the emotional content in favor of the victim of the shooting? All directors use creative license in a movie. As I think of it and researched some of you old articles, I found no comments of “frabrication” in any of your articles of historical movies where the lead was a white character. The dog scene may have been added to show a side of Grant as he was, not as one might think him to be. I guess a scene with him refusing to kill someone while in lock-up would have been to over the top. The “Dog Scene” may have been a reflection of Grants new found path through life. If all you take away from this movie are the two scenes that were added by the director’s creative license makes the story less tragic, then the issue is not in the telling but in your heart and mind. Guilt can be a powerful sobering experience.

“the man who shot and killed Oscar Grant has already served time in prison and Grant’s family has prevailed in a large civil suit.” – That depends on how you define “justice.” If you mean in the literal sense that he underwent a trial than yes, justice was done. If you mean it, as most people do, to be an evenhanded and appropriate penalty commensurate with the crime, then no “justice” was not done. Very few would consider 2 years proportionate to what occurred. And if you’re referring to the 1.5million that his daughter received in the civil suit, I don’t know many that would say giving money to a 7 year old for shooting her dad would be justice. But as I alluded to earlier, we clearly have different definitions of justice.

“Even if Mehserle had been a horrible racist who had gotten out of bed that morning vowing to kill an unarmed black person, why would he have done so in front of dozens of people, many of them filming the incident from a distance of a few yards on a well-lit transit platform?” – For the same reason that he was able to grab a taser, allegedly thinking it was a gun, and kill a man. He was not thinking clearly through his actions. You say yourself that it was a “split second decision” and an act of instinct, but why should he be able to weigh all of his options in this brief moment if, as you say, it was a split second calculation? You seem confused on your own positions, or are playing devil’s advocate without thinking through your own arguments. You can’t have it both ways.

“Moreover Grant (unmentioned in the film) had already fled from, and eventually been Tasered by, a cop after a 2006 traffic stop.” – Moreover? Seems to indicate you mean as further proof of something, and unless the Defendant has the entire arrest record of every individual in the Oakland area in his memory bank, that would in no way come into his calculation and as such has no bearing on your former point – which I assume was that Grant had a history of resisting arrest.

I was going to continue to pick apart this piece, but I think it’s purpose was to elicit responses by being controversial. Clearly your points are not well thought out. Had this simply been about playing loose with the facts, it still would have been silly since artistic license is expected in movies based on true stories, but at least it would have been on point. But when you dive into your thought process regarding culpability, responsibility, what should and shouldn’t be into the movie, this whole editorial falls apart.

Why is the contributor going out of his way to water down this event and make this killing seem so insignificant? According to the Tribune, Pirone cashed unemployment checks from May 2011 through December of that year, even though he had already enlisted and begun work at Fort Bragg Army Base nearly 3,000 miles from the nearest BART train. What is the larger crime, a naive young guy selling drugs for a short time or a older adult and former military officer striking an unarmed young man, using racial slurs, and stealing thousands of dollars in unemployment benefits? Audio, video, and independent witnesses supported the prosecution’s version. These officers were out of control, and continued on that path even after being fired for lying.

I think the biggest surprise of this article is that Kyle Smith is a professional reviewer of movies! Surely a man in his position is familiar with some filmmaking basics. Like “based on a true story” does not mean 100% to-the-letter factual. And emotional truth vs. actual truth. Hell, the concept of drama itself (hint: it is more heightened than real life). Not one of his points about both the omission of facts and additional scenes changed my opinion of Oscar, his story or the injustice.

One can only guess Smith’s intention with this piece. To suggest that at 11 months jail time, the officer who killed Oscar has been brought to justice is unbelievably insensitive & plain wrong. And attempting to bring down Oscar’s name hardly seems like a worthwhile exercise. The only result I can see coming from this superfluous tangent is further pain & disrespect to Oscar’s family. But to anyone who’s been offended by Smith’s writing, I’d remind you that he works for the New York Post, not exactly known for their fact-checking either.

Well written article Kyle Smith, and it is brave of you to highlight these types of points in a world where lynch mob mentalities make their mind up about a situation before taking a rational unbiased look at all the facts. In these situations, people who acknowledge any facts that contradict the lynch mob are branded racists. I agree with your point whole heartedly, which others seem to miss: “poetic license” is alright in many situations, but if your intent is to bring about political action, especially in a situation where a human’s life is at stake (officer in the shooting), it is irresponsible to twist facts to inflame the situation. With people’s reputation & safety at stake, film makers should be more responsible.

This article does an excellent job of vilifying the victim without once questioning why BART was employing a person like Mehserle. While Grant may have been a “low-level criminal” Mehserle would be considered a dangerous criminal and would have been locked up for a very long time had he not be a cop when he shot a subdued unarmed man in the back of the head. And the point that Mehserle was “the first California police officer to be charged with murder in the course of making an arrest” presumes that cops are held to the same laws as civilians when they get into a “scuffle.” One only need read about Kelly Thomas, another minority, to recognize that cops can be recorded killing unarmed civilians on tape, for no other reason then feeling disrespected, and get away with it. At least Mr. Smith has the decency to admit that Grant did not deserve to be shot in the head. It’s just too bad that the article focuses almost entirely on Grant’s non-violent offenses that had no bearing on this incident instead of on the violent, unnecessary act of Mehserle, or how the incident could have been prevented if the ranking officer had handled the situation better, or how much money police brutality cases cost taxpayers every year, or how many officers are poorly trained to deal with minorities, or how they should be required to get college degrees that justify their salaries, which can exceed six digits annually.

So I guess “Fruitvale Station,” which does not make any effort to portray Mr. Grant as a saint, did not leave out as many facts as this article does on Mehserle, and the rest of the officers mishandling and escalation of this tragic event. But I guess demonizing the victim is easier than facing the disturbing facts of police abuse of minorities in this country.

Kyle I’m interested in knowing if your opinions on this movie err person has changed. It’s been a while since this was written and more information has come to light.

I’m also interested in understanding the motivation for “movie review”. It read more like a character judgement on the subject matter of the film than it did a review of the film. You have to be self aware enough to know that any character judgement, post mortem, on someone that died in such a way was going to cause people to question the motives behind the piece?

It reads like “don’t cry for him, the world will be better without one more thug”

at best insensitive. I’m not so sure care, but I thought I’d offer a perspective, respectfully

Thank you for capturing what I was thinking Naithan. This seems more like a character assassination attempt than a review. The author seemed very interested in proving the movie portrayed Grant in an unrealistically positive light, which is far from true. He was also very interested in digging up whatever old dirt he could find on Grant and acting like that had a bearing on what happened that night. It seems as if every time a minority like Trayvon Martin, Kelly Thomas, Rodney King, or Oscar Grant is beaten or killed, the conservative media wants to find fault with the victims so they can make the atrocious acts committed against them a little more justifiable.

Mr. Smith. Thank you for your opinion. It is unfortunate that someone gave you the platform to speak. I am sure your journalistic integrity is not dampened by the fact that your right-winged biases are thinly veiled under what is supposed to be objective reporting. If Oscar Grant was white would he have been fatally shot? If you can fool yourself into answering that question with a yes then we are in more trouble than I thought. The late Mr. Grant did not die for naught. That is all the movie is trying to portray, the fact that you cannot handle a movie which brings to life a story that many AMERICANS believe to be at the center of our disconnect as a nation is due to your own faults and not those of the filmmaker. Factually, I don’t think the inaccuracies you pointed out were the ones which made the issue so polarizing. The fact that Mr. Grant had a criminal record means what exactly? That he sold drugs means what? Does that mean he was any less of a person? Does that mean that his death is less of a loss for society? How about for his family? I hate to be so cliche about this but the fact that you see the movie as a political ploy rather than telling a compelling story of a tragedy says more about yourself than it does the movie. This is no ad homonym attack, I don’t know you at all. You miss the mark completely in your criticism.

Well articulated but I don’t endorse the racial arguments in the review and some of your comments. No human deserves to have their life taken away from them and there is no excuse to do that espesh if they were unarmed. That’s manslaughter. If the police was released on parole as opposed to how the US law should deal with such a crime, then indeed there ought to be justice for Grant.

It is wrong for the writer of this review to call Grant a low life and a criminal at the time of his death,while at the station, he did not commit any offense other than disturb peace during the fight, and that wouldn’t have deserved the cold blood death.

About the police who committed the crime, it’s also wrong to assume that he shot Grant because he was racist, that’s too extreme. All the police could have harassed Grant and his crew because it’s obvious that a group of black people are more likely to be considered as more rowdy than a group of white people, what could be termed as racist, but all these are assumptions.

There is no need to apologize to the police who shot Grant because he has served his time but to Grant’s family,his daughter, they will never have their loved one back.

Also about the part in the film where Grant is seen hiding the weed and sympathizing the bull dog,said to be off the real events of that day, isn’t such a big deal. Films based on true stories aren’t real but enacted, if the director wanted to add some spice, why not? The argument that he necessarily did that to make Grant look like a kinder human being is a lowly argument,why not look on the brighter side??

Not a great write up, review or OPEd. The point was to show the humanity of a man despite whatever crimes, petty or otherwise that he committed. That a Black man’s life is valuable, but clearly not as valuable as white men because there have been no reports of any white men being shot in the back by police officers.

Many biopics fabricate, why’d you go in on this one? Your writing feels like a loosely veiled defense of something… I’m not sure what but you get to write for Forbes while other men are fighting to be seen, let alone even think of being hired or considered to write for Forbes.

I came to this article because I was doing some personal research initially on the effects of microaggression, but eventually my scope increased and I found an article called “Moving the Race conversation forward” Part one of which focuses on some of the issues with the way race and racism are discussed in the media.

One of the problems the article noted is that often articles about race and racism often remove the global view of racism in society (dismissing the importance of systemic racism) and focusing almost exclusively on personal racism. It is an inescapable fact in our our society that there is a view among many that young black men are dangerous and violent. For some this point view is conscious, for others it is not. A person does not have to be a violent racist to hold this view, they can be good ordinary people who in most aspects of their lives would not appear to be racist.

However, under stressed conditions, or when forced to make a split second decision regarding a potential danger this stereotype they have of people of color can lead to increased violence towards them and has resulted in the death of many young people of color who did not have to die. For example there are studies where police officers (both black and white by the way) are much more likely to mistakenly assume that a wallet or a phone in the hands of a black man is a gun, that if the same article is in the had of a white person. This young man might not have been a saint, but the statistics tell us that the chances are very real that had all things being equal he been white, he might not have died that day.

As for the artistic liberties, show me one biographical movie (not a documentary) that gives us an unadulterated view of someone’s life? George Washington and the Cherry tree anyone? (and that is not even a movie). He might not have stayed by the side of that dog, but chances are he might have done something equally compelling, but we will never know if he never said, because now he is dead.

The movie’s goal is to humanize a young man who belongs a demographic that is often dehumanized, to give value to lives that in our society we often don’t value.

I believe he was reaching for his taser. I also believe that the cops took their time calling for an ambulance and instead chose to cover their tracks by collecting evidence and shutting up witnesses. in fact .. im sure of it.

Interesting and not surprising. So, Kyle, you found a few “aha” moments in the film. “Aha, see everyone, a black man can’t be humanized. You see people? This film has a made up scene in it about a black man caring for a dog. I knew a black man couldn’t really care for an animal, therefore, it makes his murder a little more understandable.” This is what your article reads. You miss the entire point, once again. And for you to think the death wasn’t a vicious one that should have sparked rallies? Well then, Kyle, why did it? How much more brutal does a murder have to get in order to spark a rally? Should there be more blood? Do you need to see more pictures of mangled bodies? Would it be acceptable to riot if the cop had called him a nigga before pulling the trigger? Or if he shot him just once more? I guess the constant rise of black bodies murdered by white cops aren’t enough to spark a rally, correct?

This “”"article”"” is so transparently malicious I don’t know why you even bothered going on about how he shouldn’t be dead, when in the same sentence you equate his life to being a ‘low-level criminal’. How about ‘father’, or ‘man young enough to be a senior in college’? Like where is the respect? What you see as false positivity in this movie is supposed to be a celebration of his life, so that you can see him as a multi-dimensional human being. They show negative aspects of his life as well, as you know having watched this movie so critically. The reason the pitt bull scene makes sense is because young unarmed black men (and women) are shot all the time by the police, literally every 28 hours a black man is shot by the police. This is all part of a much bigger picture and the director knew it. Regardless of the exact specifics of the happening, he was shot face down, with his arms behind his back, EXECUTION STYLE. Hence the labeling of the crime an execution. He was posing no threat or bodily harm to the officers, he was completely within their control, and that murdering pig got away with only serving 11 months in prison. Imagine if your father was shot and the murderer was only put away for as long as someone arrested for POM? Only a Jim Crow like yourself would try and shit on his reputation with this whiney-racist-mess of an article.

I wonder what your purpose for writing this article is. It has been a proven fact that history is written by the winners and the oppressors. The facts, Mr. Smith, are the facts… even if the director of the movie added scenes, he still alludes to the fact that Oscar Grant was not perfect… The facts are that he was living life, he was shot unfairly and the officer that shot him did not pay the price. It is obvious to me that you are trying to undermine the value of this movie based on real life, by writing this petty article… I am surprised that a magazine such as Forbes would even accept an article such as this one. It shows that you are obviously biased… This movie shows the facts, that when you step out of your house you are in as much risk of getting hurt by a criminal, as getting hurt by a cop. It is truly scary how they can get away with things with a slap in the hand. This kind of article raises serious questions in my head of the kind of people that still have a mentality such as yours. And some of the people commenting on this make me realize that there is still a lot of racism in this country… it is such a pity, after all these years you would think people realize that we are the same… and that people are just people. We can’t judge Mr. Grant, and we can’t judge the officer that shot him… but in reality… The officer should have gone to jail for a lot more time than that…

SHAME ON YOU FORBES!! Shame on you for allowing Kyle Smith to defecate on the murder of a young man. How could you allow Mr. Smith a platform where he can bring up unnecessary depictions from a film entitled ‘BASED ON a true story’ to justify the unjust killing of a young man… a black young man. How could you allow Mr. Smith to attempt to indicate that this is a ‘mere’ accident.

Kyle Smith – you seem to be rather concerned about whether or not Oscar Grant saved a dog. You seem to be justifying his murder over this particular incident. I won’t bother making a comment about the irrationality of your point, as it’s quite apparent that the quantity of a man’s melanin is what makes him a human in your eyes – the less the melanin, the more the human. The less the melanin the more useful the life.

It is men like you Kyle that I will have no choice but to teach my son to watch out for. Men who who feel perfectly comfortable to defecating on a young man’s life for one reason and one reason only – because he was black. Shame on you.

i am upset because 1you bring things up that had nothing to do with the last 24 hours of his life and it makes it look like you are downing the victim and saying the cops were at less fault, that is wrong,also this movie is based on events that happened, it did not say it was actually what happened, 2 you seem to dig up all this stuff on the victim, did you bother getting the same weapons the officer had and see if it was possible or not to mistake a taser and the sig sauer he shot Oscar with, i really don’t think you did. the weight alone should have been noticeable between the two, i don’t know who was right and who was wrong,3 they also didn’t say in the movie that the bart cops confiscated several of the phone’s and camera’s to the one’s closest to the shooting and you never mentioned this. and people can say this wasn’t about race, i say in the end our justice system made it so, cause if it was a black cop and a white kid criminal or not, the black cop would have served more than eleven months, and he would not have got double time served. In the end a 22 year old, young man and father lost his life, over something that could have avoided.

In your first paragraph you state that the man who shot Grant has already served time in prison. However, the officer was only sentenced to two years. I would hardly call that justice for taking a man’s life.

ridiculousness. I’m just surprised there weren’t more films like this. He was 22 and he got shot in the back while lying face down. What if he was your kid would you be upset because they put a scene in where he witnessed a dog being run over by a pirate car who didn’t get stopped? The similarity and the meaning of the scene. The same thing happened to Oscar as that policeman got off serving just 11 months for the his death. So “accidents happen” and somebody gave “the accident “it’s true deserving justice as a horrible tragedy that broke allot of hearts and anguished allot of people and shouldn’t be forgotten every time a police officer pulls out his taser.